[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200206184134.GA11027@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:41:34 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"Yang, Fei" <fei.yang@...el.com>,
Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@...labora.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
Thinh Nguyen <thinhn@...opsys.com>,
Tejas Joglekar <tejas.joglekar@...opsys.com>,
Jack Pham <jackp@...eaurora.org>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Avoiding DWC3 transfer stalls/hangs when using
adb over f_fs
On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:29:45PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > No, it shoudn't. dma_map_sg returns the number of mapped segments,
> > and the callers need to remember that.
>
> We _do_ remember that:
That helps :)
> that req->request.num_mapped_sgs is the returned value. So you're saying
> we should test for i == num_mapped_sgs, instead of using
> sg_is_last(). Is that it?
Yes.
> Fair enough. Just out of curiosity, then, when *should* we use
> sg_is_last()?
Outside of sg_next/sg_last it really shoud not be used at all as far
as I'm concerned.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists